High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order rejecting the call for witnesses. It directed the trial court to call PW-1 and PW-2 for cross-examination to secure a fair trial.
Order dated 05.04.2024 set aside; application disposed of with direction to call PW-1 and PW-2 for cross-examination.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128493
Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22286 of 2024 Applicant :- Shailendra Giri And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Giri,Shashi Kant Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
2
AIR 1989 SC 1335; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2006 SC 1367; Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750; and Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, dealt with the issue of fair trial observing:
Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as a whole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of the law' and the courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings.
Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It necessarily requires a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but should be seem to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to get a fair trial is not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
xx xx xx xx
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore, fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity
3
and is governed by rule of law. Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights."
Order Date :- 8.8.2024 Ishan
Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting the application to call witnesses for cross-examination should be set aside to ensure a fair trial.
Whether the opportunity for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was denied to the applicants.
Whether the High Court can quash the trial court's order to restore the right to cross-examine witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I. and anotherReferred¶10
Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2014) 16 SCC 628 · Who else cites this
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.Referred¶11
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2013)
Triveniben Vs. State of GujaratReferred¶11
Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335 · Who else cites this
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and othersReferred¶11
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2006 SC 1367 · Who else cites this
Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors.Referred¶11
Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Referred¶11
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750 · Who else cites this
Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State)Referred¶11
Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shailendra Giri And Another
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Ishan Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
